Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Sally Vix wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

This, hence my statement .

Some of y'all are getting triggered by the word indictment. Indictment doesn't equal guilt. Trump would be indicted if he wasn't president. Btw, same with Bill Clinton.

Read the report. It lays it all out.

Alan

Alan, you need to read this closely and slowly. Mueller specifically said this "It is not true that Trump would have been indicted if not being a sitting president." Nadler and Lieu both made this claim and it is not true. Mueller said Trump would not have been indicted if he had not been a sitting president. Please read this a few times.

You are working very hard to believe what you want to believe.

First, I can't find that quote. Where, specifically, did Mueller say that?

Second, it's clear from all of his testimony that Mueller believed he was not allowed to make a determination of the president's guilt. Furthermore, he wanted to avoid answering a hypothetical question about whether or not he would have indicted if the OLC memo did not exist. He tried to thread the needle and he sometimes missed on both sides.

However, when confronted with questions about each of the three elements of obstruction, Mueller testified that the president's actions met all three elements. Mueller refused to draw the final conclusion, but he gladly admitted that the report contains everything needed to indict after leaving office.

The

Fat hurts wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

Well, Supreme Court just ruled that more than a billion redirected from military to wall funding is ok. I think this is a giant win for him for his base. If he moves to build that wall quickly and he can later show some immigration “stats” to prove that it is working then it might gain more popularity.

The Supreme Court DID NOT RULE that redirected fund for the wall is ok. They ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue. They never ruled on the merits of the case.

That is a distinction for sure, and an important one, but the effect is the same. Now he has money for the wall

Yeah, about that... wrote:

Only the best people . . .

.

"The verdicts . . . amount to a belated courtroom victory for special counsel Robert Mueller, who investigated the $600,000 lobbying and public relations contract at the heart of the case and then handed the matter off to other federal prosecutors . . . ."

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/23/trump-adviser-bijan-rafiekian-convicted-1428176?fbclid=IwAR0kuL1-l-6jUp98alLcaJQMihkuSECPCvgi-XqWxpV5wY5X-AlMBj8L5pg

How did I not hear about this?

Trollminator wrote:

The

Fat hurts wrote:

The Supreme Court DID NOT RULE that redirected fund for the wall is ok. They ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue. They never ruled on the merits of the case.

That is a distinction for sure, and an important one, but the effect is the same. Now he has money for the wall

Sort of. He can use the money until a ruling on the merits, which will happen when they get the issue of standing sorted out.

They need to substitute the correct plaintiff. I'm not sure how that all gets worked out, but opponents are saying that this is not over. It's still not certain if he can get any new miles of wall built before a final ruling.

Sallly Vixxxxxxens wrote:

I.C.E (I Comprehend English) wrote:

Mueller and his team spent 2-plus years looking at everything, and interviewing hundreds of people and examining thousands of documents and never were able to determine if obstruction of justice happened. So YOU retract your statement.

Good luck with that.

I predict Flagpole will try to spin his way out of it.

—————————————————————

Stop lying...holy shyt! Just read and comprehend what was written in the report and what Mueller said from his own mouth!! NEVER WAS IT STATED THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO DETERMINE OOJ BASED ON THEIR FINDING. NEVERRRRRR!

Here is Mueller’s words EXACTLY (I even capped the main reason he states that they would state a determination):

“Third, our investigate of efforts to obstruction the investigation and lie to investigators was of critical importance. Obstruction of justice strikes at the core of the governments effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable. Finally as described in Volume II of our report, we investigated a series of actions by the President towards the investigation (approximately 10). Based on JUSTICE DEPARTMENT POLICY and PRINCIPLES OF FAIRNESS (i.e. indicting a sitting president/upcoming election), we decided we WOULD NOT (not could not) make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime. That was our decision then and remain our decision today.”

(Starts at the 2:04.35 mark)

Dummies!![/quote]

This is pretty much VERBATIM what Mueller said just Thursday "I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning. I want to go back to one thing that was said in my testimony with Lieu who said that you (Mueller) did not charge Trump with a crime because of the OLC opinion. That is not correct. As we said in the report, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime." NOT that Mueller and his team would not make a determination. NO - we DID NOT REACH a determination." NOT would WE WOULD NOT make a determination. We DID NOT reach a determination."[/quote]

——————————————

Shut up! His walk back was solely in regards to his comment with Lieu...NOTHING ELSE! He did so because his answer to Lieu was making a determination on Trump. Which he said he could not do due to DOJ policy and principles of fairness.

There is no way in hell you can sit there as an unbiased individual and say the 10 instances listed in the report in regards to OOJ were not crimes! Mueller in his testimony said they amounted to crimes.

I have also attached that video so truly unbiased people who are competent enough to understand what’s being said can see exactly what was said about OOJ and what Mueller statement in Thursday walked back.

I truly despise intentionally disingenuous people. Y’all are amongst the worse humans that can exist!

This is pretty much VERBATIM what Mueller said just Thursday "I want to add one correction to my testimony this morning. I want to go back to one thing that was said in my testimony with Lieu who said that you (Mueller) did not charge Trump with a crime because of the OLC opinion. That is not correct. As we said in the report, we did not reach a determination as to whether the president committed a crime." NOT that Mueller and his team would not make a determination. NO - we DID NOT REACH a determination." NOT would WE WOULD NOT make a determination. We DID NOT reach a determination."[/quote]

——————————————

Shut up! His walk back was solely in regards to his comment with Lieu...NOTHING ELSE! He did so because his answer to Lieu was making a determination on Trump. Which he said he could not do due to DOJ policy and principles of fairness.

There is no way in hell you can sit there as an unbiased individual and say the 10 instances listed in the report in regards to OOJ were not crimes! Mueller in his testimony said they amounted to crimes.

I have also attached that video so truly unbiased people who are competent enough to understand what’s being said can see exactly what was said about OOJ and what Mueller statement in Thursday walked back.

I truly despise intentionally disingenuous people. Y’all are amongst the worse humans that can exist!

]

Quit lying dude. Just quit ly9ng.

Sally Vix wrote:

Alan, you need to read this closely and slowly. Mueller specifically said this "It is not true that Trump would have been indicted if not being a sitting president." Nadler and Lieu both made this claim and it is not true. Mueller said Trump would not have been indicted if he had not been a sitting president. Please read this a few times.

You are a fkn moron.

Trollminator wrote:

The

Fat hurts wrote:

The Supreme Court DID NOT RULE that redirected fund for the wall is ok. They ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue. They never ruled on the merits of the case.

That is a distinction for sure, and an important one, but the effect is the same. Now he has money for the wall

Meh. A few feet or a few miles of wall is a drop in the bucket. Come 2020 whatever money is still in that pool is going back to their original source anyway.

Alan

Promises made, promises broken.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-adds-41-trillion-to-national-debt-heres-where-the-money-went-162238723.html

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/22/deficit-don-budget-red-ink-trump-1426696

Deficit Don!

Does deficit Don have a secret health issue causes him to develop communication problems. His inability to pronounce common words has increased.

Deficit Don has to try and win reelection, even though he might be having stroke symptoms. Once out of office he can be arrested. He has to try and win re-election even though he is sick.

https://www.politicususa.com/2019/07/25/trump-mangles-words-pentagon.html

Concerned about deficit Don wrote:

Does deficit Don have a secret health issue causes him to develop communication problems. His inability to pronounce common words has increased.

Deficit Don has to try and win reelection, even though he might be having stroke symptoms. Once out of office he can be arrested. He has to try and win re-election even though he is sick.

https://www.politicususa.com/2019/07/25/trump-mangles-words-pentagon.html

He wouldn't be the first president in which his administration had to lead him through the early stages of Alzheimer's. We should stop electing 70 yr olds.

Alan

And Biden would turn 80 as president if elected, so we certainly should not elect him.

Mueller wasn’t giving an indictment or an opinion on indictment regardless of how obvious his crimes may be.

He merely investigated him.

So Trump must be impeached and tried to get a vote of his guilt on record.

Too old wrote:

And Biden would turn 80 as president if elected, so we certainly should not elect him.

Unlike Trump, Biden does not slurp his words.

slurping your words wrote:

Too old wrote:

And Biden would turn 80 as president if elected, so we certainly should not elect him.

Unlike Trump, Biden does not slurp his words.

Slurp: eat or drink with a loud sloppy sucking noise

Slur: speak indistinctly so that the sounds run into one another.

More and more African Americans are voting for Trump every day.

The A$AP Rocky thing will work in Trump's favor.

Dems on here think it will work against Trump because his base is a bunch of racists and so he can't show support for blacks - wrong. This issue highlights the terrible immigration policy of Sweden, reinforcing Trump's own immigration sentiments.

slurry slushy sloppy slurp wrote:

slurping your words wrote:

Unlike Trump, Biden does not slurp his words.

Slurp: eat or drink with a loud sloppy sucking noise

Slurp is correct for describing Trump when he tweets.

Unpresidented

Boarder Wall

Covefefe

Bigly

....

Too old wrote:

And Biden would turn 80 as president if elected, so we certainly should not elect him.

I agree.

Alan

Yeah, and rat-infested obviously implies “black-infested,” since trump is from NYC, and there are certainly more rats there (since there are more people).